Linux-Advocacy Digest #201, Volume #31 Tue, 2 Jan 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Why Hatred? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Uptimes (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: COM on UNIX (RussLyttle)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
("pub10.ezboard.com web2news.pl")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Jacques Guy)
Re: Need help with NT ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:10:01 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Linux is just now getting a handle on comprehensive and intuitive GUI
> interfaces. Apple pioneered this field, Microsoft copied it. XFree86
> attempted to give it to UNIX for free (and is just now getting a handle on
> that) and a truely intuitive and FUNCTIONAL GUI is still not totaly
> available.
>
> Windows lacks things. Linux lacks things. And which lacks in more
> (desktop) functionality? LINUX.
X-Windows is only a little younger than the Apple and Windozzzzzzzz GUIs,
and /it/ started out with network support.
You state your falsehoods with such authority. Have you ever thought
of going into politics?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:00:50 GMT
In article <92trlm$kv9$05$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Warner wrote:
>
> >
> nothing
> >
>
> just try to unlock your caps key would help a lot.
> By yelling that way you did you're telling the world just one thing:
>
> Not even clever enough to unlock CAPS !
>
Or mebbe just accustomed to running an all-caps operating system.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:15:44 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > Yea, 20 years too late.
>
> And yet, you claim that MS is "modern", when they are just now
> implementing technology which has been standard on every other
> platform since the 1970's.
Kyle do exhibit patchy knowledge, doodn't he?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:18:43 GMT
JSPL wrote:
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:55:33 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm still skeptical. Why then are Linux books such a large segment of
> > >computer books in the bookstores nowadays?
> >
> > Because there's a market! Contrary to what some WinZealots want us to
> > think, people are using Linux.
>
> I just dis a search at Amazon.com for the keywords "microsoft windows" and
> it shows 3589 matches. I then did a search for "linux" and that keyword
> recieved 510 matches. I also was in a Barnes & Noble not long ago and do not
> remember seeing nearly as many Linux related books compared to volume after
> volume, and sometimes multi volume SETS of books about Microsoft Windows and
> NT.
510/3589 = 14%, which is a hell of a lot more than 0.3% or even 3%. Not
a bad ratio at all.
In the OS section of the B&N store in Mt. Pleasant SC, the ratio is more
like 40/60 if you add in the few UNIX and the single FreeBSD book.
Chris
--
Patiently awaiting the denouement of the Howie Long and
Terry Hatcher saga.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:17:37 GMT
I didn't write the afformentioned sections. My post was "clipped" in it's
entirety.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> > >
> > > Yea, 20 years too late.
> >
> > And yet, you claim that MS is "modern", when they are just now
> > implementing technology which has been standard on every other
> > platform since the 1970's.
>
> Kyle do exhibit patchy knowledge, doodn't he?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:25:18 GMT
mud wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Please plonk me, asshole.
>
> ok....
> plonk
> lintroll
See how polite ng'ers are when you say "please"?
<grin>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:27:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 01 Jan 2001 09:58:38 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Stop twisting words. What you describe is an abnormal NT situation. It
>> doesn't work that way for millions of people that use NT on dual processor
>> machines daily.
>
>It is the windows experience that conditions people to
>accept frequent reboots, reinstalls of the OS, random
>lockups and the like.
>
>> Your experience is abnormal, yet you're acting like it's the typical one.
>
>It's all too common.
>
>Eric, why do you haunt the linux newsgroups?
My guess is that it's for the same reason we do -- to correct
misconceptions regarding his favorite product. :-) (Misconceptions
as perceived by him, anyway.)
However, I do wonder. NT just did it again -- changed an icon
association for no discernable reason! (This time might have been
operator error -- but I certainly didn't select "Wordpad" for this
particular file type; I selected IExplorer and may have forgotten
to unchedk the "Always use this program" box. But the icon is the
same one used for Wordpad -- and one wonders why people get confused.
Is this some sort of stupid default? Or is this icon supposed to
represent a generic document? I've also just noticed the musical notes
in the upper left hand corner of this icon (and the red letter in
the lower right) -- bizarre!)
>
>jjs
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- time to enter the hive again -- bzzzzzzzz...
up 93 days, 21:32, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: RussLyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: COM on UNIX
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:29:22 GMT
Andy Newman wrote:
>
> RussLyttle wrote:
> >I think it was first from IBM, but dropped when they couldn't solve the
> >security and stability problems. MS adopted the son of the IBM model as
> >COM (then DCOM, MTS, ActiveX at marketing whim). CORBA takes a different
> >approach to the same end and is, hopefully, more secure.
>
> I was actually refering to Xerox PARC in the 1970s. They most likely
> used distributed object programming in their numerous systems.
I know. I was refering to IBM in the late 60s to early 70s trying to develop timeshare
and large government networks. I can't
recall the name of the IBM project off hand, but I do recall that initially COM was
decried as a poor copy of a failed
technology. IIRC, the sequence was IBM tried and dropped it. Unixen kept trying until
they gave up, CORBA began development, MS
rushed out COM, COM failed so MS split it into what is now called DCOM, MTS, and
ActiveX in some random manner.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:23:48 GMT
In article <92tmli$ojd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
> Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
>
> "There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
> Gates]
...or Al Capone, or Manuel Noriega, or John Gotti...
> or great companies [like Microsoft]
... or the Mafia, or the Medellin cartel, or the Hell's Angels...
> are hated, and it has
> nothing to do with so-called monopolies. [Microsoft is] hated . . .
> because [it is] good, that is, smarter, more visionary, more creative,
> more tenacious, more action-focused, more ambitious, and more
> successful than everyone else.
Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 01:49:43 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 02 Jan 2001 04:55:32
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> >> >> I have no choice but to see almost every action of a Republican
as a
> >> >> >> personal attack;
> >> >
> >> >Now that's a rational attitude, isn't it?
> >>
> >> I'm afraid it is, yes. A sorry state of affairs, but politics is a
game
> >> where CYA is the only strategy that makes sense.
> >
> >Instantly assuming a Republican, or any person aligned with a particular
> >political view, comes out of the gate with a personal attack is most
> >assuredly NOT rational.
>
> You misread my statement, apparently.
"I have no choice but to see almost every action of a Republican as a
personal attack"
How is this being mis-read?
>
> >My tone got ugly only after phrases such as
> >"classic bullshit, soft-headed (obviously a pet phrase of yours) and
> >transparantly moronic" entered the picture.
>
> Those aren't the kind of personal attacks I was referring to.
Those are the ones *I* was refering to...
>
> [...]
> >> >> >You do have a choice, Max.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> it is an self-preservation mechanism.
> >> >
> >> >Paranoid schitzophrenia?
> >>
> >> Subversive iconoclast.
> >
> >No less rational than the prior description.
>
> Guffaw.
>
> [...]
> >> That same way you are; you keep posting no-content messages, as if
> >> you're responding to my statements, but you never actually provide any
> >> reasonable response to my comments, almost as if the only reason you
> >> read my words is so that you can snipe and spout rhetoric, and you stop
> >> even trying to understand my reasoned and practical position.
> >
> >I've responded calmly and rationally to several of your statements. The
> >foolishness began when you were pressed for an explanation of your views
and
> >provided insults and lame condescension as a response. I read your words
to
> >try and get a fix on where you're are coming from and whether or not
you're
> >simply made of straw. Your replies seem rational enough when discussing
> >uptimes but they certainly seem less so when discussing politics.
>
> They are the same arguments: you believe in what you most reasonable
> know to be true, and judge the validity of facts by how well they
> correspond with other known facts, and strive at all times to be as
> accurate, consistent, and practical as possible.
...Then keep the name-calling out of it.
>
> In the one argument, were we have Microsoft apologists wishing to prove
> that NT is a reliable system, and in the other we have Republican
> apologists wishing to prove that Democrats have no honesty or integrity.
> In both cases, statements made by the apologists are apparently inspired
> by arguing from conclusions, and would prefer that their personal
> convictions have the weight of facts, regardless of how unreasonable
> they are in their presentation or support.
Well, to dispute such things requires facts from the other end as well.
Preponderance of evidence shoots the MS fans' arguments out of the water.
Step out from behind rhetoric and place your cards on the proverbial table.
You're not going to be taken seriously otherwise.
>
> [...]
> >> >Which you convieniently neglect to bring forward...
> >>
> >> Look around. So far, you haven't refuted my position (in fact, you've
> >> strongly supported it by engaging in such mindless squirming in leu of
> >> refuting it with facts or reason) so if you have any facts which you
> >> believe can shed light on how accurate, consistent, or practical my
> >> argument is, feel free to provide them. Real facts, please, not simple
> >> Republican hyperbole and partisan thrashing.
> >
> >Yes, your position has been refuted. And you, sir, have been asked on
> >several occasions for facts. Your response was the aforementioned
> >name-calling.
>
> Bullshit. ;-)
>
> >Any facts presented to you are instantly filed under hyperbole and
partisan
> >thrashing.
>
> Now if only I was partisan, or presenting any hyperbole, you might have
> some small point. ;-)
No...You've misread that.
"Any facts PRESENTED TO YOU are instantly filed....etc"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You assumption is that I'm a fanatic.
Trying to bait me (If that was you) with a slam towards the moral majority
in an earlier thread pretty much spelled that out. That organization,
wrapped in a contradiction of terms, isn't supported by any Republican I
know - Even the Pentacostal ones.
>
> In point of fact, I am not a Democrat, nor a liberal, nor a Republican
> or conservative, but a moderate independent. My presentation has been
> entirely and completely limited to the recognition that, if there was
> political malfeasance going on, it is most probable (and supported by
> what few facts we actually have, if they can be extracted successfully
> from media presentations) that both sides were doing everything they
> could to ensure they carried Florida.
>
> The Republican's incessant efforts to insist the Democrats were trying
> to subvert the process count in the Democrats favor, I'm afraid. It
> might not seem rational, but it is definitely and without a doubt
> reasonable.
>
> [...]
> >> >Hope the voices in your head have something nice to say soon...
> >>
> >> To requote my own previous response:
> >>
> >> >> >> >> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
> >> >> >> >> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and
right-wingers of all
> >> >> >> >> stripes typically use.
> >
> >The phrase "Hope the voices in your head have something nice to say to
you
> >soon" isn't an argument - Its' an insult.
>
> Actually, it is an argument; of the ad hominem variety.
>
> >I apologise for that...Spending New Years porting poorly written legacy
code
> >from C to C++ makes me a bit cranky.
>
> And here I would have thought it had something to do with having been
> shown to be engaging in hyperbole and partisan rhetoric.
I don't think that particular quip can be found anywhere in the GOP playbook
<g>
The Dem playbook won't contain it either as schizophrenics are a minority
and therefore potential constituents. <g>
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:55:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
From: "pub10.ezboard.com web2news.pl" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
U812
Moderator
(1/2/01 9:21:26 am)
Reply
Microsoft antitrust ruling
Note to Bill......Don't get any ideas that I have changed my position on MS...LOL...
May 3, 2000
Microsoft antitrust ruling: More costly than all the bank robbers in history
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Justice Department's plan to break up Microsoft is not just a
bad legal
decision -- it's a case of "bureaucratic grand larceny" that has already stolen more
wealth from
Americans than all the bank robbers in history, the Libertarian Party charged today.
"Move over Jesse James, John Dillinger, and Willie Sutton. There's a new criminal in
town that
makes you look like amateurs -- and it's the antitrust gang at the Justice
Department," said
Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "With its decision to eviscerate one of
America's
most successful high-tech corporations, the Justice Department has committed the most
costly and
malevolent act of economic vandalism in American history."
Specifically, the Justice Department's announcement last month that Microsoft broke
antitrust
law -- and its decision last week to try to divide the Redmond, Washington-based
corporation into
two separate companies -- caused a massive meltdown in technology stocks. According to
financial
experts, the plunge in the stock market cost American investors $150 billion to $208
billion in
lost wealth.
By comparison, bank robbers steal "only" a few tens of millions of dollars a year,
noted Dasbach.
For example, the Justice Department reported that bank robbers stole $28 million in
cash in 1994.
"With its Microsoft decision, the Justice Department looted the savings and retirement
funds of
80 million Americans who directly own Microsoft stock or invest in one of the 2,000
mutual funds
that include Microsoft stock -- proving that the Justice Department is more costly
than any
criminal gang," said Dasbach. "After all, it takes crooks a whole year to steal $28
million from
banks, but it took the government only one lawsuit to steal $200 billion from
Americans."
But was that harsh economic medicine necessary to "save" consumers from a predatory
corporation?
The alleged victims don't think so, noted Dasbach: A new public opinion survey by the
Harris
Interactive polling company found that 59% of Americans support Microsoft in the
antitrust battle,
and only 29% say the government is treating Microsoft fairly.
"What we have here is a classic victimless crime," he said. "The Justice Department is
supposedly
trying to rescue consumers from the clutches of an evil corporation -- but consumers
support the
evil corporation. What does that tell you about the merits of the case?"
And there's another important group that disagrees with the rationale behind the
antitrust lawsuit:
American investors.
"The Justice Department claims that breaking up Microsoft will enhance competition and
innovation,"
said Dasbach. "If investors agreed, the stock market would have risen after the
Justice Department's
antitrust announcement.
"At the very least, companies that compete with Microsoft and presumably would gain
the most from
its break up -- Sun Microsystems and others -- would have benefited from the decision.
Instead,
their stocks took a drubbing, and their value plummeted.
"Clearly, investors are trying to send the government a message: Attacking successful
corporations
is not good for the economy."
Anyone who reviews the government's assault on Microsoft -- and considers the economic
damage,
the negative reaction of the stock market, and the rejection by consumers -- can reach
only one
conclusion, said Dasbach: The real criminal in this case is the Justice Department.
"When bank robbers steal your money, at least they have the honesty to admit they're
just thieves,"
he said. "When the Justice Department destroys $200 billion in wealth, it has the gall
to claim
that it is acting for our own good. That's the real crime -- and the reason why the
tax-funded
political power of the Justice Department is far more dangerous than Microsoft will
ever be."
The Good The Bad and The Ugly
If you continue to do the things you have always done, you will continue to get the
things you
have always gotten!
jranidae
Registered User
(1/2/01 7:40:40 pm)
Reply
Post hoc ergo promper hoc (MS antitrust ruling)
"Specifically, the Justice Department's announcement last month that Microsoft broke
antitrust
law -- and its decision last week to try to divide the Redmond, Washington-based
corporation into
two separate companies -- caused a massive meltdown in technology stocks. According to
financial
experts, the plunge in the stock market cost American investors $150 billion to $208
billion in
lost wealth. "
An obvious logical fallacy. And the rest of the opinion piece didn't make much sense
either.
As an involuntary user of Microsoft products, I can say for a fact that consumers are
harmed. We
are forced to make do with inferior software, gouged on licensing fees, and plagued
with
unneccessary virus and other security vulnerabilities.
It's all bad, man.
Full text at:
http://pub10.ezboard.com/fthegoodthebadandtheugly49488hottopicsfordebate.showMessage?topicID=586.topic
Posted with: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=596972256&fmt=text
http: pub10 ezboard com fthegoodthebadandtheugly49488hottopicsfordebate
showMessage?topicID=586 topic web2news.pl
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:07:26 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
hackerbabe wrote:
>
> A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
> Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
That is an extraordinary site, well worth visiting, while
keeping in mind Ayn Rand's quip "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal",
seeing that Micorosft has been plundering its shareholders'
capital to pay its employees in monopoly money.
In fact, Micorosft is the very antithesis of capitalism,
unless you mean highway robbery by it. It is difficult,
given the amount on this site of this garbage (which
reminds me very of the rhetorics of the USSR press under
Stalin), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that
prof. Locke of the University of Maryland is in receipt
of juicy "research" grants from Micorosft. Call that
"research" and you may as well call the kettle white
and the pot a crock of gold.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need help with NT
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:05:47 GMT
"John G. Sandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Problem with friend's NT system at work -
>
> I read this newsgroup in my spare time -
>
> Seems as though there are a lot of Windows experts participating -
>
> I hope one or more of tem can help -
>
> NT Workstation 4.0 runnning on print server /proxy server -
>
> Several other PCs with W98 and ME -
>
> Friday the NT workstation computer went down - apparently a power supply
> turning bad fried some components -
>
> Moved hard drive to a new AMD Duron 700 Mhz box, tried to use the R
> option from the NT CD, it ran but didn't fix anything.
>
> Did an install - that worked, but shortly after boot, there's a message
> that a service failed, see EventViewer.
>
> Event Viewer says Service Message Control hung, the next message says
> Service Message Control failed.
>
> Loaded NT SP4 OK.
>
> Loaded Norton Utilities OK
>
> Re-loaded WinProxy but it can't find the ISP connection (DSL).
>
> I suspect the network card that connects to the DLS modem is bad - I had
> to replace the NIC that connects to the office network, and the NIC that
> connects to DSL might have got fried, too.
>
> Got it mostly working, had to re-enter the user accounts, but can't get
> at shared drives or the shared network printer; on the other PCs a x
> pops up asking for a password, but no matter what I do with User
> Accounts or passwords, keep getting told it's an invalud password....
>
> Any suggestions?
With all due respect, you may wish to take the question to a more
"NT-friendly" arena. ;)
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
